zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Adminstrators Only - Increasing the Minium Time Length
Well, I believe Oni mentioned that the time it takes for users who get unaminous support is too short. Some users simply fly right through, and in the case of Minish, if TM had voted a mere two hours earlier, then it would have taken longer. I feel that we need to give users a bit more time on these issues. Once there is a general consensus, we shall have a vote, and implement that. Also, these things are typically admin-only, so sorry non-admins!'-- C2' / 20:19, April 12, 2011 (UTC) :Honestly I think it depends. In cases like myself I got about the same number of votes (9ish) I got in my approved request that I did in my last request, which lasted two weeks. The thing is as I mentioned in our conversation earlier more than 50% of our contributors are the rollbackers/administrators who are usually the first ones to vote on requests. I think if we're going to increase it probably 48 hours is more than enough; if a user's got 6+ straight supports for 48 hours I think we can safely assume there's no huge opposition, right? -'Minish Link' 20:28, April 12, 2011 (UTC) ::I was merely throwing around some arbitrary number. Two days is fine, and maybe even a little bit better.'-- C2' / 20:39, April 12, 2011 (UTC) :::48 hours seems like enough time to me. Jedimasterlink (talk) 21:38, April 12, 2011 (UTC) :Furthermore, I know there's been talk of possibly lengthening the time to make site decisions (i.e. "are we going to move?" "should we do ___?"), but I think that two weeks should stay the same as for the maximum amount of time an RfA can run for. I'm not sure if there was talk of changing that as well but I'm just throwing this out there if that is the case. -'Minish Link' 22:42, April 12, 2011 (UTC) ::Two days seems fine to me. One day is just too short, but within two days, those with an oppose in mind should be able to figure it out by then. As for any of those things, it should all be brought up to at least two days. Can you imagine if we moved the first day? That would have been just too quick. - McGillivray227 22:46, April 12, 2011 (UTC) :::Talking of that, thank god we didn't move since ShoutWiki is generally slow and buggy and right now it's been down for a month. -'Minish Link' 22:56, April 12, 2011 (UTC) I'll repeat what I said on my talk page, just to clarify. Well, the wait "one" day is more of a general guideline, to be honest. It's really there for those who may raise possible objections to get them in. Honestly, the 2 hour gap is kind of irrelevant. His vote still counts as an oppose in my book. Perhaps we should rephrase it though to avoid confusion. While we're on the topic of admin request rules, perhaps we should consider upping the vote count required. I say this, because we seem to have a larger voting base than we did at the time the rules were written. This isn't to make adminship more exclusive or anything, it would just ensure a majority is in favor of the motion. Also I'm not talking a drastic increase, just 1-3 votes more or something. Discuss.—'Triforce' 14 23:33, April 12, 2011 (UTC) :Only problem I really have with your suggestion is that it will only delay a person for so long, and to point out an example, I recieved more than the required votes in 24 hours than what was required. I feel that the only real way to slow down a promotion is to increase the minium time gap. Also, in the past since the 24 hour rule has been made up, if the person had enough supports with no opposes, they would get it at the 24 hour period, regardless if anybody might oppose them. I am all for the wording to be tweaked so that way it will avoid a mess like the one yesterday.'-- C2' / 21:58, April 13, 2011 (UTC) ::I originally thought that the rule meant 24 hours after the last required support, so I'm in favor of better clarification. Also, yeah, I remember that the 24 hour thing ended up excluding a user who wasn't on for one day (Xykeb was going to vote in my running but he wasn't on that one particular day). So, 48 hours (maybe even three days) sounds good, for after the last needed support. The 22:27, April 13, 2011 (UTC) :::Yeah, CC the increase in votes would have to come with an extended time period. For that the idea wouldn't be to delay someone, it would be to have a larger consensus of people, since our voting base has grown since the rules were written. As for the waiting time limit, I agree with the concept of it starting after the last needed vote has been cast.—'Triforce' 14 22:42, April 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::So from what I gather here the number of votes required and minimal time period are kind of dependent on eachother, so before we decide one we kind of have to decide on the other at this point, don't we? If we're going for 48 hours/2 days then we should probably increase the number of votes only by one or two, but that's just me. -'Minish Link' 22:47, April 13, 2011 (UTC) :::::We don't necessarily have to change the amount of votes required, it was just another suggestion pertinent to the discussion.—'Triforce' 14 22:54, April 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::::I don't care whether or not we change the number of votes, but I do think the minimum time should be changed to 2 or 3 days. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 23:11, April 13, 2011 (UTC)